If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Originally Posted by Dutchcedar

I have squirrels, you have a conspiracy theory.

Added language? C'mon. "State Department". That's your "added language". And it doesn't change anything whether its there or not. Read the two examples. Whether one calls out State or not changes nothing.

See here: "...all agency equities, including those of the State Department..." Is your point that if they were not called out specifically, they would would not be included? Are they not one of the "agency equities"? Of course they are. They both say the same damned thing. If the original said "except the State Department", you might have something.

I'll give ya this, but its a stretch. Maybe, by calling out State specifically, the pointer is directed their way for a not so careful reader. We now know Al Qaeda's involvement was covered up. We also know the video as a cause is bulldung. But to say that this error that was made without the actual e-mail in hand, was done intentionally to point the finger of blame at the State Department... I s'pose its possible that was there, but certainly not proven. Maybe Karl met with Karl Rove before hand, who didn't know Media Matters was on the hunt for a counter conspiracy theory for Benghazi.

What would be the motive? Its not like it would point blame at Hillary (that might be a reason), because like Barrack, she states she was "out of the loop". Who cares which agency is portrayed at playing the heavier hand in rewriting these talking points? Apparently, the folks at Kos care quite a bit. Why?

Where's the truth? Why is it being hidden? Why are all of the e-mails not released? What's the big secret? Why the cover-up? We know all the agency equities, included those of the State Department, are involved in keeping the secrets from the American public.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

You have yet to even demonstrate what the significant difference is between the two examples we're disputing.

I only have to prove you have nothing of substance here, that Kos and Media Matters blew smoke. I did that..

He, at least, isn't trying to blow smoke up my arse.

I don't have to prove crap Dutch....I'm not the one claiming to KNOW about all of this coverup BS. I'm also not the genius who thought up the idea to re-word the e-mails to make them look...I dunno....worse? different? It doesn't really matter. What matters is that the e-mails were such a non-starter on the whole cover-up thing that someone decided to leak phony e-mail content to the press to make it look "more" like a cover-up.

In other words, what you've got right now is Jack

But hey, a republican in the congress/senate who had access to the e-mails decided that he should change the wording of them and then leak them to the press. I'm sure he had nothing but the best intentions. Nothing to see here.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, than the e-mail actually stated.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Originally Posted by BlackDragon24

I don't have to prove crap Dutch....I'm not the one claiming to KNOW about all of this coverup BS.

You're the one claiming that someone decided to leak phony e-mail content to the press to make it look "more" like a cover-up. Yeah, we now know... the ABC reporter added "State Department", so you see "phony e-mail content" and a Republican conspiracy.

Goose steps. Practice 'em.

If you'd like to talk about the administration's cover-up instead, we can do that.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Originally Posted by Dutchcedar

You're the one claiming that someone decided to leak phony e-mail content to the press to make it look "more" like a cover-up. Yeah, we now know... the ABC reporter added "State Department", so you see "phony e-mail content" and a Republican conspiracy.

Goose steps. Practice 'em.

If you'd like to talk about the administration's cover-up instead, we can do that.

Wrong answer Dutch.

Karl already stated his source was a republican and the text he received was "misquoted"

Those are facts....if you believe Jon Karl.

And it had a lot more to do with just the "state department" language.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whoever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Karl already stated his source was a republican and the text he received was "misquoted"

He also stated knowing it was from from a summary and not the actual e-mail.

And again, it makes no difference. There is no substantive difference between the two.

Just the mountain you and your compatriots on the left are trying to make out of this molehill because you have nothing else but lies from Barrack and Clinton about what they knew and when they knew it.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Regarding this:

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whoever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

Did you really read that? It "appears" to have done so in a way to "appear"... blah, blah, blah. WTF is that? That's what you're hangin' on? Someone's opinion about how it appears? How 'bout what it actually says? Nope. There's no "there" there. Why don't your fearless leaders just clear it up by releasing ALL of their e-mails?

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

He also stated knowing it was from from a summary and not the actual e-mail.

Yeah after he got caught using a source that he didn't verify

And again, it makes no difference. There is no substantive difference between the two.

You are just being willfully ignorant now....which I realize as I type it is an oxy-moron, but there's no other way to put it.
Jon Karl makes things worse

CNN’s Howard Kurtz, who knows a little bit about being in the line of media fire for his own work, offered ABC News’s embattled Jon Karl the chance to defend himself on Reliable Sources Sunday. Karl, of course, is in hot water because his “scoop” revealing that the White House tampered with Benghazi talking points relied on doctored email leaked by House Republican sources. That’s not my charge, by the way: CBS’s Major Garrett reported Friday that House GOP staffers peddled the doctored email to him and other reporters.

Karl didn’t appear on CNN, but he gave Kurtz a statement which is brazen and baffling.

Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.

-Jonathan Karl, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent

Now, let’s unpack this.

First of all, why was Karl providing a statement to CNN, but saying nothing on ABC’s “This Week,” which featured him and his “scoop” prominently last Sunday? That’s just very weird.

On to the statement itself: Karl admits the email that served as an electronic smoking gun, proving the White House intervened on the side of State, “was quoted inaccurately,” but the story “still entirely stands.” That’s gutsy – and crazy.

The passive voice “was quoted inaccurately” sounds a lot like “mistakes were made.” Who quoted it inaccurately? Was it Karl’s source? Or was it Karl himself?

Indeed, Karl “updated” his story “immediately” — only to say that despite the fact that Rhodes’s email didn’t say what he claimed it did, he stood by his story, and the real problem was that the White House refused to release the chain of emails. He hasn’t spoken since the White House took his advice and made the emails public – which unraveled his story entirely.

So how can the story “still entirely stand” if the Rhodes email was either doctored or dishonestly paraphrased? Charitably, you might be able to say the top line of the story – that government agencies made extensive changes to a draft of the Benghazi “talking points” – is correct. But the power of the story was that it seemed to prove that the White House acted to protect the State Department politically. That’s not true, so the story clearly does not “entirely stand.”

Finally, Karl ignores one of the big charges against him: That he reported that he had “obtained” the emails in question, when he later admitted that he had them read to him by a source who took notes on them – some very dicey third-hand sourcing that cannot remotely be characterized as “obtaining” the emails in question.

Karl has gotten himself, and ABC News, in more hot water here.

Speaking of the Sunday shows, I can’t believe nobody asked what the House GOP was doing to get to the bottom of the scandal of who released the doctored White House email to Karl, Garrett and other reporters. As Alex Seitz-Wald reported Friday, back in 1998, when a House GOP staffer was revealed to have selectively (and misleadingly) leaked testimony from former White House counsel Webb Hubbell, that staffer was fired, with even former Speaker Newt Gingrich railing against the abuse.

That disgraced House staffer, by the way, was David Bossie, who went on to head Citizens United, which unleashed a flood of ugly dark money – and also helped produce the IRS scandal that is currently eclipsing Benghazi in Scandalgate. Nicely played, Republicans – always and ever abetted by the mainstream media.

Just the mountain you and your compatriots on the left are trying to make out of this molehill because you have nothing else but lies from Barrack and Clinton about what they knew and when they knew it.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Just the mountain you and your compatriots on the left are trying to make out of this molehill because you have nothing else but lies from Barrack and Clinton about what they knew and when they knew it.

Originally Posted by BlackDragon24

Again. PROVE it. With something on paper and not in your head.

I guess you don't realize that by by posting mountains of articles by Kos, I think Media Matters, and now by Salon, that you've PROVED the mountain for me. For a paper version, hit "print".

Not a one of the long screeds of what's supposedly behind the addition of "the State Department" answers the question made famous by Hillary, "What difference does it make?" That question fits better here than in her explanation to congress for blaming a video on the attack in Benghazi.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Originally Posted by BlackDragon24

The Nixonian angle is getting a lot of play here. I'm thinking we need a name for Karl/ABC News.

I'm thinking "Woodward-ian"

The Karl/ABC News thing is explained. We all know now what happened there. It didn't take a book. We're left now with all your favorite sites writing opinions about it to keep the tale of nothing alive.

Nixonian is the cover-up. There's a lot of that going on now in the White House. This case is but one of many.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

I guess you don't realize that by by posting mountains of articles by Kos, I think Media Matters, and now by Salon, that you've PROVED the mountain for me. For a paper version, hit "print".

Not a one of the long screeds of what's supposedly behind the addition of "the State Department" answers the question made famous by Hillary, "What difference does it make?" That question fits better here than in her explanation to congress for blaming a video on the attack in Benghazi.

Maybe I should have been more specific...prove the "nothing but lies" part. I'm well aware of the mountain I've made

And "Woodward"-ian will be defined as "a reporter who reports a story, has it thoroughly debunked, then continues to pimp the story as if it is true."

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Maybe I should have been more specific...prove the "nothing but lies" part. I'm well aware of the mountain I've made

And "Woodward"-ian will be defined as "a reporter who reports a story, has it thoroughly debunked, then continues to pimp the story as if it is true."

lol, the problem is his "truth" is not found @>>>ACE, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Drudge, etc which is the problem with his argument. He won't read your sources and only makes arbitrary fun. I guess he doesn't understand we do read his links, and as such find the facts simply don't support his or their argument and see it for what it is. I fear it is hopeless.

Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

Re: Libya: The Entire Hideous Mess

Maybe I should have been more specific...prove the "nothing but lies" part. I'm well aware of the mountain I've made

To be fair, I said the mountain was made by your liberal blowhard sources, but read it differently if you choose.

Here's a hoot from one of those you posted:

That disgraced House staffer, by the way, was David Bossie, who went on to head Citizens United, which unleashed a flood of ugly dark money – and also helped produce the IRS scandal that is currently eclipsing Benghazi in Scandalgate. Nicely played, Republicans – always and ever abetted by the mainstream media.

See how clever? Citizens United helped to create the IRS scandal and Republicans are always and ever abetted by the mainstream media. Hey, you posted it.

-

Back to the lies from Obama and Clinton regarding Benghazi... they've been well documented, even in this thread. If you aren't well aware of 'em, or chose not to take 'em on then, you can search Google or this thread for "video" as a start.

Since that might be a hassle, although he's not someone I'd usually link to, the following is from Glenn Beck... at least he made some of 'em into a list. Its pre-cover-up.

#1. “Our current best assessment based on the information we have at present is that in fact what this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what had transpired in Cairo.” — Susan Rice

#2. “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.” — President Obama

#3. “But the entire reason that this has become the, you know, political topic it is is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.” — Stephanie Cutter (Obama’s campaign spokesperson)

#4. “That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video, sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” — President Obama

Important because the President’s defense has been ‘we corrected it’ and called Benghazi an act of terror two days later. This was after that.

#5. “I know there are some who ask, why don’t we just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws. Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.” — President Obama

So it’s still the “video” and claiming people are calling for speech to be limited.

#6. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” — Hillary Clinton

…how many times did they try to go down this road?

#7. “We can all condemn this reprehensible video.” — Victoria Nuland

That’s 3 members of the State Department…1 political operative…and the President.

#8. “Find the video that has been so offensive to Muslims to be disgusting and reprehensible.” — Jay Carney

Seriously?

#9. “To address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests.” — Hillary Clinton

#11. “And it is in response, not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video.” -
Jay Carney

…sigh.

#12. “Now we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or premeditated.” – Jay Carney

Really? Because we actually know that you had information that the attack was premeditated days before the attack took place. One of the people in Benghazi called the State Department with concerns warning of the attack.

Oops.

#13. Reporter: “And CBS has learned that the U.S. mission in Libya reportedly ‑‑ repeatedly asked for better security before last month’s attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. A State Department officer says there were 13 confirmed security threats in the six months before the attack. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed three weeks ago.”

“Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security and we did not know they wanted more security again.” — Joe Biden

That’s cute, Joe.

#14. “The White House and State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two ‑‑ of these two institutions were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility because consulate was inaccurate.” — Jay Carney

…odds Jay Carney has this job a year from now?

#15. “And make no mistake: We will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.” — President Obama

Well…the video guy is in prison — no terrorists from this attack yet though.

#16. “You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who is extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam. We had nothing to do with the video.” — President Obama

The video? Again? Come on guys…

#17. “It’s not a matter of blaming, that’s just the facts. Sometimes intelligence has to catch up with the reality on the ground. This was one of those cases.” — David Axelrod

Doesn’t the intelligence normally come from information on the ground? Throwing the CIA under the bus is never the smart choice, David.

#18. “First I pretty the faux outrage from the RNC and the Republican Party.” — Stephanie Cutter

Somehow this is one of the masterminds behind Obama’s re-election.

#19. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they would go kill some Americans?” — Hillary Clinton

Something tells us it’s starting to make a difference to Hillary (and her 2016 presidential hopes).

#20. “Let’s be clear: These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.” – Jay Carney